I will say a few words about this piece in the New York Times but I will refer to the writer as "they" because in fairness to her, the propagandists in the Saudi and Hariri media don't really have independent minds and they surrender their personalities and individualities as a condition of employment. They are mere tools in a larger apparatus of the Hariri press office, which answers to the Saudi intelligence service. So I will be referring to "them", in reference to the Saudi masters. But notice that in the context of the Lebanese conflict, the New York Times does not find it necessary to inform readers that Now Lebanon is a Hariri-Saudi website that toes the Saudi political line. I mean, if the website is loyal to Hizbullah, don't you think that they would tell readers about that? Now let us begin: So they talk about the clashes of Tripoli as the work of the Syrian regime. But how is that? The clashes according to all accounts were instigated time and time again by the pro-Saudi Salafis in Bab At-Tibbanah in the city: are they implying that those pro-Saudi Salafis are agents of Hizbullah? And let us say they are, how do the clashes serve the Syrian regimes when they only mobilize against the regime and even sectarianly against `Alawites? And what about those burning of `Alawite business and stores in Tripoli? Did the Syrian regime instigate that to? Furthermore, are they implying that the 5% of the city who are `Alawites decide by orders of the Syrian regime to start a fight with the 95% of the city? How insane is that? I also notice that they refer to Hizbullah as a "beast". Very precise language in the Times. Do you think that the Times would permit anyone to refer to Israeli terrorist forces as "beast"? But there is some comic relief in the article: "It seems that the Lebanese Army has finally received political cover, mainly from President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati, to confront Hezbollah". Wait. Wait. So even though the March 14 coalition in Lebanon, which has a real popular base in Lebanon (half of the Lebanese population support that coalition), failed in confronting Hizbullah, but now the two men with NO REAL POPULAR base have decided to confront Hizbullah? How funny is that? The supporters of Michel Sulayman in Lebanon can all fit in one falafil hut. Wait: but the writers have evidence and a solid example: "On Sunday, 18 armed men from a family with links to Hezbollah were arrested by the Lebanese Army. Two trucks and a warehouse full of weaponry were confiscated. This arrest is politically significant." Let me update the story: all the armed men have been released. Kid you not. Now that is funny. So their only real evidence did not materialize either. But there is another funny part: the article began by saying that Hizbullah is instigating instability in Lebanon on behalf of Syria, but concludes with the claim that Hizbullah is avoiding an explosion in Lebanon on behalf of Iran. You would require those Hariri propagandists to take a course in basic course of logic for their own good. But they can't help it. Orders of Saudi Arabia are orders that can't be refused. And those token Shi`ites in the Saudi-Hariri media apparatus are required to show extra zeal to justify their employment. (thanks Sultan)
PS One more thing: how come "their" English is much better than their English when they write on Now Hariri?
PS One more thing: how come "their" English is much better than their English when they write on Now Hariri?